pork barrel

Land Grab Bill: Senators Check Principles at the Door

by Myron Ebell on January 17, 2009 · 1 comment

in Energy, Environment, Politics as Usual

I have heard several Republican congressional leaders say that the party has learned its lesson from their disastrous losses in the past two elections. From now on, it’s back to being the party of limited government, fiscal discipline, lower taxes, and against pork barrel spending.

Sounds good, but Senate Republicans have blown their first opportunity to demonstrate that they mean what they say. The first bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) brought to a vote in the 111th Congress is the omnibus land grab bill that was blocked in the waning days of the last Congress by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). It was re-introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as S. 22. It contains around 160 titles. Lots of new National Parks, Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Trails, and National Heritage Areas. Plus making official a whole new designation of public land lockups for the Bureau of Land Management called Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. And withdrawing 1.2 million acres from the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming from future oil and gas production–an area with high gas potential.

The Senate voted on Thursday 73 to 21 to pass this monstrosity. Twenty-one Republicans voted against it, but nineteen Republicans (and all 54 Democrats who voted) voted for it. This first vote suggests that it’s going to be business as usual for many Republican Senators in the 111th Congress. Talk about shrinking government and reducing federal spending. Talk about increasing domestic energy production. Talk about stopping pork barrel spending. And then vote the other way.

The twenty-one Senators who voted against S. 22 were:
Brownback (Ks.), Burr (NC), Chambliss (Ga.), Coburn (Okla.), Cornyn (Tex.), DeMint (SC), Ensign (Nev.), Graham (NC), Grassley (Ia.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe (Okla.), Isakson (Ga.), Johanns (Neb.), Kyl (Az.), McCain (Az.), McConnell (Ky.), Roberts (Ks.), Sessions (Ala.), Shelby (Ala.), Thune (SD), and Vitter (La.). They should be congratulated.

If you hear any of the nineteen Republicans who voted for the land grab bill talk about getting back to the basic conservative principles of less government, lower spending, and protecting property rights, have a good laugh.

S. 22 now moves to the House of Representatives.

Stimulating Rent Seeking

by Ivan Osorio on January 8, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Energy, Politics as Usual

President-elect Obama’s proposed economic stimulus package (on which Doug Bandow commented recently) isn’t even in Congress yet, and the the rent-seeking has already started. ClimateWire reports:

As lawmakers and President-elect Barack Obama mull another economic stimulus package, businesses and congressional leaders are jockeying to be in position to receive the first trickles of federal cash intended to stem losses of jobs and raise energy efficiency.

Two sectors, in particular, stand to benefit, judging by the debate so far. Labor unions are pressing for a package that focuses on “green jobs” like renewable energy generation and retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency, as well as traditional construction projects aimed at roads, bridges, schools and transit.

The other major beneficiary is shaping up to be “smart grid” improvements, or advanced technologies aimed at increasing the efficiency of the country’s aging electricity infrastructure and accommodating emerging energy sources such as solar power….

An example of the type of business that stands to capitalize is Silicon Valley’s Echelon, a 20-year-old company that makes systems that allow energy systems and office buildings to communicate with each other online. Echelon’s LonWorks platform is used in buildings and transportation systems worldwide, most notably in Honeywell heating and air conditioning systems but also in the New York City subway system, Army Corps of Engineers facilities and McDonald’s restaurants.

If new power grid systems are so efficient, why would they need to be subsidized? Granted, some utility franchises may create distortions and inefficiencies, due to their government-granted monopoly status, but utilities are still businesses, and businesses always seek to cut costs. Going “green” may soon become the last refuge of the rent seeker. (Paid subscription required for ClimateWire link.)

Davis-Bacon from the Pork Barrel

by Ivan Osorio on December 29, 2008

in Economy, Regulation

In today’s Wall Street Journal, the Brookings Institution’s Clifford Winston points out some critical pitfalls likely to face the infrastructure spending element of President-elect Obama’s “stimulus” plan:

One of the biggest killers of all is that states insist on allocating federal transportation funds through a politically devised formula. The result? Smooth, well-paved rural highways and worn-out urban roadways that are paved with a layer of asphalt too thin to withstand heavy use and are therefore in need of excessive, costly maintenance.

But don’t blame the states for all the inefficient use of highway dollars. Federal regulations have also inflated the cost of providing roads, trains and so much more for a public on the move.

It takes the nation’s busiest airports decades and billions of dollars to build new runways, for example, because of onerous regulations imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Davis-Bacon mandates, which effectively require that “prevailing” union wages (often much higher than the actually prevailing market wage) be paid to workers on any construction project receiving federal funds, also drive up the costs of roads and other federal transport projects. The Federal Transit Act also makes it extremely expensive to lay off transit employees.

Winston is right to point all this out, and he makes some sensible recommendations, including reform of Davis-Bacon. However, reforming the federal infrastructre spending process can only lessen wasteful spending so much, since as long as government is involved, politics will remain a part of the process. (Still, a light touch is too much to expect from Washington, so Obama taking Winson’s advice into consideration is to be hoped for.) For more on Davis-Bacon, see here.